Skip the evidence for a moment. My statement was as to the accusation, first. The accusation, sans evidence, is deficient.
Evidence is involved too, but first things first. Make an accusation that fits the crime. Then, when the accused is before the judge who approves the deprivation of liberty, the accused can ask a series of yes or no questions, e.g., do you have ANY evidence that I [fill in the blank following the elements of the accusation]. ANY "no" answer means the evidence is deficient.
Wearing of colors and being at the scene is not even a sufficient accusation. None of them are going to credibly deny those points as a matter of evidence (disputing being there (although some of the arrested did arrive AFTER the shooting stopped), or wearing colors).
-- the accusation is that the individual "did commit or conspire to commit...". So all that is needed is probable cause for one or the other, the direct involvement in a crime (even as an accomplice), or the conspiracy. The police witnessed the crimes being committed, and that is generally accepted by the courts as probable cause for arrest in and of itself. --
I'm haven't been talking about individuals who perpetrated violence at the scene. The deficiency I have been addressing is whether or not the state 1) states and 2) has probable cause of conspiracy.
-- so long as they can make a case for probable cause on any of the charges, the arrest is probably going to be deemed legitimate. --
That depends on the timing of "making the case." It's not legal for the state to accuse somebody before it has the evidence. But, if you abandon your previously held position that it is legal to arrest a bunch of people, without evidence, and "wait for them to turn against each other" to provide the evidence the state needs, then I'll conceded the point. If the state has the evidence before they arrest, the point is a truism. Being able to make the case with evidence and having probable cause are equivalent.
-- we have a case where the government has known members of criminal organizations, apprehended at the scene, after law enforcement, bystanders, and video cameras witnessed them engaging in mass violence. --
As I said before, the people who are viewed perpetrating violence can be arrested. For them, there is probable cause of committing at least assault. Many, I think most of the accused stand accused of ONLY conspiracy. If you reflect on the posts in this dialog, you will see my reference to the paucity under the element of conspiracy. -- In this case, all of the accused were at the scene, which I think is an important detail that undermines the accusation that this is just "guilt by association", or "club conspiracy". --
The state has the burden of making the accusation, and of asserting that it is prepared to prove the accusation in court. Is it your contention that being on the scene and wearing colors establishes conspiracy?
“Wearing of colors and being at the scene is not even a sufficient accusation.”
Yet that isn’t the extent of the accusation. The officers witnessed the accused engaging in crimes, and that is part of the accusation as well.
“I’m haven’t been talking about individuals who perpetrated violence at the scene. The deficiency I have been addressing is whether or not the state 1) states and 2) has probable cause of conspiracy.”
Yet that is part of the affidavit, so it doesn’t seem sensible to ignore that fact when evaluating whether the arrest was improper.
“But, if you abandon your previously held position that it is legal to arrest a bunch of people, without evidence, and “wait for them to turn against each other” to provide the evidence the state needs, then I’ll conceded the point. “
Again, you are misinterpreting my previous comment. For all we know, the state may already have that evidence, and may have had it before the events that day. I never said anything about “waiting for them to turn against each other”, so I don’t know why you put that in quotes.
“As I said before, the people who are viewed perpetrating violence can be arrested.”
As can any accomplices who were caught at the scene of the crime, whether they engaged in the violence directly or not.
“Many, I think most of the accused stand accused of ONLY conspiracy.”
That’s not really possible if they are all charged on a “cookie cutter” affidavit, as people have pointed out repeatedly. If it’s a “fill in the blank” form, then they must all face the same charges.
“Is it your contention that being on the scene and wearing colors establishes conspiracy?”
No, but I’ve already explained in a previous comment how it serves to establish a lot of the underlying facts needed to establish a conspiracy.